Sunday, August 06, 2006

Learning the Left's Lessons

John Edwards has clearly learned the lesson that the left has been trying to teach Joe Lieberman -- that is, that any support for the war on terror and the war on Iraq can have unfortunate electoral consequences for Democrats. Lieberman's being assaulted for nothing more than being a member of the "loyal opposition" to the President (in the sense that Republicans were during WWII).

That, no doubt, is why Hillary took such care to go after Secretary Rumsfeld this week, and why Edwards himself is calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Although the far-out leftism emerging among Democratic presidential contenders is going to be a benefit for Republicans in 2008, it also raises the stakes of the 2006 elections, which, at the moment, don't look too great for Republicans.

It's hard to believe that, less than 5 years after 9/11, one of the major parties would in essence advocate surrender and defeat in the war on terror -- and make no mistake, that's exactly what a premature withdrawal from Iraq would mean.

5 Comments:

The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress in general, not just the administration, and is reflected in a "zero tolerance" attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for any excuse to "throw the bums out". Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates - most notably on the topic of "earmarks". I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman's brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark "pork", completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which - full disclosure - I am not), even though he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video and transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: "To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question"

Despite the above, the tendency of the Democratic party to blow with the wind, and in some cases, create that wind itself, is in evidence here. But they have to ask themselves, are there really enough Cindy Sheehan types that will vote for them if they pretend to have made a mistake in their previous support for the war?

I used to vote against Mark Hatfield, routinely, because of his pork politics, holding my nose, as they say, because he had a lock on the nomination. I'm tickled that an incombent might be defeated in a primary. And lets hope Lamont is indeed more than a one issue candidate.